Senate Judiciary committee rejects expanded child-custody-interference penalties after law‑enforcement objections

Senator Tammy Nichols presented H 668aa, saying the bill "strengthened Idaho's child custody interference law by clarifying violations, improving enforcement, establishing graduated penalties, and requiring welfare checks." Representative Heather Scott, the House co‑sponsor, added the measure followed statewide task‑force work to provide clearer definitions and graduated penalties while allowing reasonable exceptions.

Chief Tracy Basterrechea, testifying for the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association, warned the bill would put patrol officers in a role for which they lack resources and training. "Officers lacked the training, records, and jurisdiction to evaluate custody disputes or affirmative defenses in the field," he said, adding that inconsistent enforcement and liability risks could follow. Brian Naugle, Executive Director of the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association, similarly said verifying custody orders on scene is a "major challenge" and argued the bill would not solve systemic problems.

Other witnesses spoke in favor. Andrew Kilgore said the current system left him without parenting time for extended periods—"about 16 months with his oldest and 12 months with his other child"—and argued the bill would make court orders enforceable and reduce repeated, costly court appearances. Senators Foreman and Wintrow acknowledged the bill's intent but reiterated concerns that patrol officers could not reliably determine which custody orders were current or valid on scene and that affirmative defenses complicate enforcement.

Senator Lenney moved to send H 668aa to the floor with a do pass recommendation. The committee conducted a roll call: Senators Lenney, Keyser and Vice Chairman Shippy voted aye. Senators Foreman, Lent, Wintrow, Ruchti and Chairman Lakey voted nay. The motion failed.